1998 PLP 141 (PLC)
DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, KARACHI and another Versus HAMID QADEER
| Citation | 1998 PLP 141 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, KARACHI and another Versus HAMID QADEER |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 141 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 141 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 141 (PLC) (DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, KARACHI and another Versus HAMID QADEER). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Shamsuzzaman for Appellants.
- M.A. Hassan Malik for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 27th March, 1997.
- 3. At the very outset the learned Advocate for the respondent has pointed out that the appeal filed by the Railways is barred by limitation. The judgment was delivered on 30th November, 1996 but the copy of judgment was applied for on 4th January, 1997. The copy was delivered on 4th January, 1997 and the appeal was filed on 4th January, 1997. Thus, the copy of judgment was applied for after 30 days for filing appeal had already expired. No application under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed alongwith appeal.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 37(3) & 38
Employer, who filed appeal against order of Labour Court after expiry of prescribed period of thirty days, had contended that after passing the impugned order, Labour Court was closed for vacation and it had to file application for obtaining copies of order of Labour Court on opening day of Court
Contention of employer was repelled in view of fact that office of Labour Court remained open as no vacation was granted to any of the officers of the Labour Court
Even otherwise in absence of Judge during vacation, there always was vacation Judge on duty for the Court
Application for obtaining copy of order of Labour Court having been presented by employer not to Judge of Labour Court, but to clerk of Court, who had no vacation, the excuse for filing appeal late on that ground could not be sustained
Appeal being time-barred and no application showing cause of delay having been filed by employer, same was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Raja Shamsuzzaman for Appellants. M.A. Hassan Malik for Respondent. Date of hearing: 27th March, 1997. This appeal arises from the order of Fifth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi accepting grievance petition of Hamid Qadeer, Electrical Chargeman, Diesel Shop, Pakistan Railways and directing his reinstatement in service with back benefits.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that respondent Hamid Qadeer proceeded on leave from 10-10-1994 to 12-11-1994 for one month on the ground that he suffered from Sciatica pain. The respondent neither reported for duty after one month nor applied for medical leave. He was not under treatment of any Railway Doctor. The respondent ultimately appeared after 12 months and reported for duty but was served with show-cause notice on 17-6-1995 and domestic enquiry was conducted by Assistant Personnel Officer-II and Assistant Mechanical Engineer-I. This enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer in Question Answer Form and not in the usual Examination-in-Chief and Cross Examination Form. This enquiry was considered defective by the Labour Court and the respondent was reinstated in service with back benefits.
3. At the very outset the learned Advocate for the respondent has pointed out that the appeal filed by the Railways is barred by limitation. The judgment was delivered on 30th November, 1996 but the copy of judgment was applied for on 4th January, 1997. The copy was delivered on 4th January, 1997 and the appeal was filed on 4th January, 1997. Thus, the copy of judgment was applied for after 30 days for filing appeal had already expired. No application under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed alongwith appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Raja Shamsuzzaman admits that the appeal was barred by limitation but says that when the order was passed the Labour Court closed for vacation and so he filed the application for copies on the opening day on 4th January, 1997. The Office of the Labour Court is open and there is no vacation granted to any of the Officers of the Court. The Judge gets about six days in lieu of vacation but there is always a Vacation Judge on duty for all the Courts. The application for copies is never presented to the Judge but it is presented to the C.O.C. and he had no vacation. This excuse for filing appeal late cannot be sustained. The appeal is, therefore, clearly time-barred. In any case there is no application showing any such cause of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appeal is accordingly dismissed as time-barred. H.B.T./230/Lb.S ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.